- so if toybox can run on BSD it's legal, but if it only runs on linux it's a circumvention tool and illegal. suuuuure.....
- Oh no. [...] If BSD port will just be a curiosity then court will [rightfully] say that it's existence is just a window dressing. Napster was capable of commercially significant non-infringing use - yet it was not enough, after all. But if BSD port will be used often enough then, sure, it'll mean that toybox relicense happened for other reasons besides copyright infringement facilitation. but if it only runs on linux it's a circumvention tool and illegal
Again: nope. It's only illegal if it's only runs on linux and if a lot of companies continue to use it to violate GPL license for Linux kernel in [relative] safety.
----
http://lwn.net/Articles/480681/http://lwn.net/Articles/479419/Free software is so free, friendly community is so friendly.
UPD. Posted Feb 9, 2012 23:44 UTC (Thu) by landley (guest, #6789) [Link]
I'm the ex-maintainer of busybox, who started toybox before I actually did the last release of busybox. I'm the one who _started_ the busybox license enforcement lawsuits (and recruited Erik Andersen in into it, and yes I still have my old email).
You're claiming that my new project might be considered an infringement facilitator AGAINST MY OLD PROJECT, and that stopping the lawsuits I _started_ might somehow legally do... something?
Your honestly believe that the legal system can and should forbid people from doing new things that compete with (and obsolete) their own previous work? And you take this position in defense of "freedom", as defined by the FSF?
I ask seriously: are you crazy? Do you need some kind of diagnosis and treatment? (I already _know_ the FSF does...
http://lwn.net/Articles/480460/ +
http://lwn.net/Articles/480452/